Comparative evaluation of Plateletworks, Multiplate analyzer and Platelet function analyzer-200 in cardiology patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to comparatively evaluate three commercial whole-blood platelet function analyzer systems: Platelet Function Analyzer-200 (PFA; Siemens Canada, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada), Multiplate analyzer (MP; Roche Diagnostics International Ltd., Rotkreuz, Switzerland), and Plateletworks Combo-25 kit (PLW; Helena Laboratories, Beaumont, TX, USA). Venipuncture was performed on 160 patients who visited a department of cardiology. Pairwise agreement among the three platelet function assays was assessed using Cohen's kappa coefficient and percent agreement within the reference limit. Kappa values with the same agonists were poor between PFA-collagen (COL; agonist)/adenosine diphosphate (ADP) and MP-ADP (-0.147), PFA-COL/ADP and PLW-ADP (0.089), MP-ADP and PLW-ADP (0.039), PFA-COL/ADP and MP-COL (-0.039), and between PFA-COL/ADP and PLW-COL (-0.067). Nonetheless, kappa values for the same assay principle with a different agonist were slightly higher between PFA-COL/ADP and PFA-COL/EPI (0.352), MP-ADP and MP-COL (0.235), and between PLW-ADP and PLW-COL (0.247). The range of percent agreement values was 38.7% to 73.8%. Therefore, various measurements of platelet function by more than one method were needed to obtain a reliable interpretation of platelet function considering low kappa coefficient and modest percent agreement rates among 3 different platelet function tests.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".